Abolishing private property?

[Zostrianos]

I've always been curious as to how abolishing private property is supposed to work in socialism,. Obviously people need to have homes and personal things, so how exactly does the process work in practice?

[Lazermazter]

It depends, primarily on which group of socialists you're talking about. Generally, things like houses, cars, etc. are seized during a revolution and taken into possession by the state. Then, the state distributes goods based on need. As far as personal items, there is serious discussion about this. For me, certain personal items, as they do not come into account during the separation of classes, can be maintained by individuals in a socialist society, but that's just me. I'm sure there are plenty of people here who will tell you that those personal items aid in the separation of classes and, by extension, exploitation. Again, it depends on the socialist.

[Chris]

Private property generally doesn't include personal property, the difference basically being that private property is workplaces (the means of production), while personal property is anything else. Homes, cars, computers etc would continue to be owned by individuals, while the workplaces are communal. There might be some tendencies who want to make personal property communal as well, albeit I've never heard of it.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I've always been curious as to how abolishing private property is supposed to work in socialism,. Obviously people need to have homes and personal things, so how exactly does the process work in practice?

Yea, people will still have homes and personal possessions. The collectivization of society is generally limited to the means of production since they're currently used by individuals for profit.

[#FF0000]

Private property = factories, farms, workshops.
Personal property = TVs, cars, your toothbrush, consumer goods in general.

That isn't to say that one can't own something capable of production -- there's no reason one can't own a sewing machine or productive machinery in general. The operative thing is that one can't exploit others by having them work the machine for someone else's profit.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Private property generally doesn't include personal property, the difference basically being that private property is workplaces (the means of production), while personal property is anything else. Homes, cars, computers etc would continue to be owned by individuals, while the workplaces are communal. There might be some tendencies who want to make personal property communal as well, albeit I've never heard of it.

:ohmy:

Yeah OP, don't worry, workers control of the means of production means workers running the workplace in everyone's interests, not the KGB forcing everyone to share the same toothbrush. :)

When you use your toothbrush or go to sleep in your bed, you aren't claiming profits from people's labour, at least not in the way that a capitalist who sells off the stuff he employs people to make and gets rich off of it does.

So yeah, as for how it would work, well I don't know, but say a nationwide day of sit-down strikes turn into a bunch of occupations and finally worker-run workplaces. That won't change that when they go home that night, they'll have stuff (food, a home, etc.).

[Lazermazter]

I like what you guys are saying about personal property except for one thing: cars. In my opinion, cars should be seized in a revolution. Private cars, over public transportation, cause a huge decrease in productivity for a nation and also cause a major environmental problem. This would have to be democratically decided of course, but my vote would definitely go towards a total societal shift from private to public transportation.

[ckaihatsu]

Generally, things like houses, cars, etc. are seized during a revolution and taken into possession by the state. Then, the state distributes goods based on need.





Yea, people will still have homes and personal possessions. The collectivization of society is generally limited to the means of production since they're currently used by individuals for profit.





There might be some tendencies who want to make personal property communal as well, albeit I've never heard of it.


It's apparent that this is something of a 'gray area' among revolutionaries, in terms of concrete policy -- I'd imagine it could become the landscape of prevailing political discussion once class rule is done away with.

I tend to see the limits of personal possessions as being defined by 'sentimentality', with the defining of such being at the heart of the policy question:





I've also wondered about how everyday use of *physical space* would change, once private property is done away with -- perhaps the communization of materials, and physical space, would mean that daily life would be much more *mobile* than today, perhaps more resembling the times of primitive communism, since there would be no more uncertainty in modern "foraging".

Private collections of whatever cultural artifacts would give way to a norm of *collectively* administrating such collections, more like a common network of museums or an academia that's as ubiquitous as the Internet.

It's tough to say, though, because it would probably hinge on how much slack the people of such a world would grant to the domain of *sentiment* -- would personal possessions *increase*, in a hoarding kind of way, for expanding and expansive personal reasons, or would society frown on such harboring of sentimentality, since all items themselves would be freely available anyway -- ?

A formal economy would be good to preserve and encourage individuality, but from a strictly material standpoint wouldn't be absolutely *necessary*, as the degree of socialized life increased. Doubtless there would have to be some complex balancing of the two, in all aspects.

[LeonJWilliams]

I like what you guys are saying about personal property except for one thing: cars. In my opinion, cars should be seized in a revolution. Private cars, over public transportation, cause a huge decrease in productivity for a nation and also cause a major environmental problem. This would have to be democratically decided of course, but my vote would definitely go towards a total societal shift from private to public transportation.

Agreed.

Though outright banning wouldn't be very practical.

How would you get to rural locations? On public transport? buses running every 30 mins with no passengers? lol imagine

Cars should be discouraged or maybe communialised but the will still be important. If it's for environmental reasons then a variety of ideas could come into force, for example ban cars from city centres. Trains can take people into a city centre and then there could be a good bus/tram/metro network as well as a cycle facility from the stations.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I like what you guys are saying about personal property except for one thing: cars. In my opinion, cars should be seized in a revolution. Private cars, over public transportation, cause a huge decrease in productivity for a nation and also cause a major environmental problem. This would have to be democratically decided of course, but my vote would definitely go towards a total societal shift from private to public transportation.

There's definitely something to what you're saying, but would pollution be as much of an issue? I think that cleaner, alternative fuel sources will be put up for discussion and use a lot more easily when the oil and gas industry loses its financial/political clout.

Also, hopefully people using public transportation in a communist society would be a lot less rude. :D I take the bus often, and the amount of pushing/nearly knocking people over/refusing to move that goes on is crazy.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

It depends, primarily on which group of socialists you're talking about. Generally, things like houses, cars, etc. are seized during a revolution and taken into possession by the state. Then, the state distributes goods based on need. As far as personal items, there is serious discussion about this. For me, certain personal items, as they do not come into account during the separation of classes, can be maintained by individuals in a socialist society, but that's just me. I'm sure there are plenty of people here who will tell you that those personal items aid in the separation of classes and, by extension, exploitation. Again, it depends on the socialist.

Yeah, but what if you are an anarchist and beleive in abolishing the state? in that case private property is not nationalised or taken over by the state, it is collectivised and taken over by the workers.
I personaly think the anarchist way is better.

[Crabbensmasher]

Agreed.

Though outright banning wouldn't be very practical.

How would you get to rural locations? On public transport? buses running every 30 mins with no passengers? lol imagine

Cars should be discouraged or maybe communialised but the will still be important. If it's for environmental reasons then a variety of ideas could come into force, for example ban cars from city centres. Trains can take people into a city centre and then there could be a good bus/tram/metro network as well as a cycle facility from the stations.

I'm a big proponent of car-pooling, which could probably gain momentum if there's a public program to help facilitate it.
Also, a lot of countries operate "mini-buses" that are like a cross between a taxi and bus. It runs a normal route around the city, but has no scheduled stops. People just tell the driver when they want to get off, and conversely, people on the side of the road wave the bus over to get on. Right now, these are very much privately run, but I'm sure nationalizing a fleet would be no more problematic than current public transportation.

Also, motorcycles. These seem to be in a different class than owning cars or trucks.
As owning a car is a sign of wealth and affluence, owning a cheap motorcycle or scooter is not such a thing. It's a real "proletariat's vehicle" I guess you could say. Besides, they are easy on gas, and would be very useful for the gaps that public transportation doesn't fill.

[ckaihatsu]

As far as transportation goes, we should keep in mind that there's a large *political culture* aspect to it, as others have alluded to in their mentioning of vested interests in conventional fuels.

It's been said that much of the economy *now* is just gasoline-driven financial activity -- which really makes sense since it feeds right into oil-grabbing imperialism.

One real possibility for *automation* should be transportation -- even at the scale of cars and buses -- running on *very* alternative fuels. Typically the technology for such is portrayed as some impossible Promethean task, when in fact current technologies of GPS, laser technology, and wi-fi would probably suffice. (Such an implementation could be compared with the political implications of automatically served *meals*, as through the Automat of historical interest, since such implementations may easily cause people to question the entire political-civilization paradigm and its overseers.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automat

[Tenka]

Private property = factories, farms, workshops.
Personal property = TVs, cars, your toothbrush, consumer goods in general.


What is your position on houses? Are they private property or personal property/possessions? If the former, they must be collectivised and possessed only by those who inhabit them (not just occasionally, either). *If the latter, what if I live on a farm? (*kidding...).

I for one am in favour of communised buildings with personally possessed apartments/rooms or flats, depending on whether they are a detached house or glorious block o' flats. It would all have to be proportional of course: a tiny house can't well be inhabited by several people, for example. Ideally all those lame detached houses would be demolished and replaced with flat-blocks.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

What is your position on houses? Are they private property or personal property/possessions? If the former, they must be collectivised and possessed only by those who inhabit them (not just occasionally, either). *If the latter, what if I live on a farm? (*kidding...).

I for one am in favour of communised buildings with personally possessed apartments/rooms or flats, depending on whether they are a detached house or glorious block o' flats. It would all have to be proportional of course: a tiny house can't well be inhabited by several people, for example. Ideally all those lame detached houses would be demolished and replaced with flat-blocks.

I agree, I once took a vacation to St.Petersburg and I have to say their use of land is much more efficient than ours. I would go even further to say that suburbs ought to be abolished and either reforested or merged with other suburbs to make new towns and cities.

[Riveraxis]

I agree with the notion of redoing or urban design. We could clearly make much better use of our land, which is going to be more and more important as populations grow.
The only thing, suppose we were to "merge our suburbs" is that we'd end up displacing a lot of people in the process. Objectively it wouldn't matter as long as everyone had a place to live, but I could see how many people would take serious offense to the state removing them from their land because it could be used more effectively.
And so I don't support collectivizing houses.
Think of that from their perspective. It's not quite as bad as having a highway built over your house, but its along similar lines.
We should consider the fact that collectivism will, unavoidably, collide with our ideas of "personal space", not to mention the sentimental value we hold over our things. That's not just going to change in the midst of revolution.

So we should balance efficiency with a little bit of empathy when it comes to personal property. I don't see any problem whatsoever with personal property if it's not held over another's head.

[Blake's Baby]

Neighbourhood councils. Like factory councils, but for neighbourhoods. The property in the neighbourhood belongs to the neighbourhood, the neighbourhood gets to decide how its allocated. What's the problem?

[ckaihatsu]

Neighbourhood councils. Like factory councils, but for neighbourhoods. The property in the neighbourhood belongs to the neighbourhood, the neighbourhood gets to decide how its allocated. What's the problem?


The problem is that such a formulation / structure invites arbitrariness.

The reason we're on the revolutionary left is because we recognize that *production* is the main organizing force in society, and we want the *workers* to be the ones organizing it.

Looking to any *non*-proletarian grouping to be the basis for decision-making is to invite in a set of social relations that are *not* based on production, and would be relatively arbitrary, and even meaningless.

I think we would be better-off seeing domestic arrangements as off-shoots from the production process -- for planning purposes -- whether that involves conventional housing or otherwise.

[Lord Hargreaves]

I don't see how a nation state could "nationalize" cars, that seems a somewhat ridiculous proposal. But there could indeed be much more developed car-pooling systems, with people sharing out their cars to the community when they are not being used. These things are personal property, a matter of neighbourhood management at best.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't see how a nation state could "nationalize" cars, that seems a somewhat ridiculous proposal. But there could indeed be much more developed car-pooling systems, with people sharing out their cars to the community when they are not being used. These things are personal property, a matter of neighbourhood management at best.


If cars are to be retained -- on *very* alternative fuels -- it would be understandable since they facilitate individualism and personal independence.

I'd argue for a kind of 'nationalization' in that the control of all cars should be centralized and automated, in realtime (with regular manual controls existing alongside, for emergencies).

In other words there's no more reason for a multiplicity of individual efforts to go into navigating roads anymore, given the world's existing technological capabilities. People should expect and receive point-to-point transportation service from whatever personal-scale vehicles happen to be around, without having to drive them, and without having to carpool.

[Per Levy]

If cars are to be retained -- on *very* alternative fuels -- it would be understandable since they facilitate individualism and personal independence.

I'd argue for a kind of 'nationalization' in that the control of all cars should be centralized and automated, in realtime (with regular manual controls existing alongside, for emergencies).

In other words there's no more reason for a multiplicity of individual efforts to go into navigating roads anymore, given the world's existing technological capabilities. People should expect and receive point-to-point transportation service from whatever personal-scale vehicles happen to be around, without having to drive them, and without having to carpool.

you know im glad that even after a succesfull revolution people like you wont have anything to say or have the power to force their views on other people. i dont like cars, i really dont. yet i wouldnt want them "nationalized" for the reason that they "facilitate individualism and personal independence". one of the big pros of communism would be that for the first time we can be individuals and can be free.

[ckaihatsu]

you know im glad that even after a succesfull revolution people like you wont have anything to say or have the power to force their views on other people.


You're implying that I *would* "force my views on other people" -- which I take exception to.





[I] wouldnt want [cars] "nationalized" for the reason that they "facilitate individualism and personal independence".




one of the big pros of communism would be that for the first time we can be individuals and can be free.


The politics of communism -- abolishing private property -- is all about *reducing labor* so that people *can* be free to be individuals and live self-determining lives. Eliminating capital-based ownership and management (capitalism) is the key, uncontroversial principle to realizing this for any revolutionary.

Much of our present-day infrastructure *should* be centralized and automated, exactly so as to reduce labor -- and I'm arguing that this should go beyond just the Internet and extend to transportation as well.

If you want to go in the *other* direction, though, it's a slippery slope -- how much freedom of how many people would you like to sacrifice for a more 'hands-on' control of various kinds of infrastructure -- ? Carrying water instead of using plumbing? Generating electricity from human or animal power -- ? (Etc.)

[Iosif]

Private property aka the means of production, not personal items would be nationalized under the proletarian state.

[Lord Hargreaves]

If cars are to be retained -- on *very* alternative fuels -- it would be understandable since they facilitate individualism and personal independence.

I'd argue for a kind of 'nationalization' in that the control of all cars should be centralized and automated, in realtime (with regular manual controls existing alongside, for emergencies).

In other words there's no more reason for a multiplicity of individual efforts to go into navigating roads anymore, given the world's existing technological capabilities. People should expect and receive point-to-point transportation service from whatever personal-scale vehicles happen to be around, without having to drive them, and without having to carpool.

I don't understand what you mean by centralised and automated control of cars. What's automated - the decision making of who gets cars when, or the car's controls hemselves? And what in the blue hell is "point-to-point transportation" we could use but wouldn't have to drive? It all sounds like some sci-fi fantasy :confused:

[ckaihatsu]

I don't understand what you mean by centralised and automated control of cars.


Think of it in terms of air traffic control, but fully automated, for cars.





What's automated - the decision making of who gets cars when,


As long as there's a surplus of cars generally around (like today) then there would be no scarcity -- the "decision-making" would be entirely logistical and computerized, *not* political. Think of how packets of information are automatically routed around the net:





The Internet Protocol (IP) is the principal communications protocol in the Internet protocol suite for relaying datagrams across network boundaries. This function of routing enables internetworking, and essentially establishes the Internet.

IP is the primary protocol in the Internet layer of the Internet protocol suite and has the task of delivering packets from the source host to the destination host solely based on the IP addresses. For this purpose, IP defines datagram structures that encapsulate the data to be delivered. It also defines addressing methods that are used to label the datagram source and destination.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Protocol





What's automated




or the car's controls hemselves?





People should expect and receive point-to-point transportation service from whatever personal-scale vehicles happen to be around, without having to drive them, and without having to carpool.





And what in the blue hell is "point-to-point transportation" we could use but wouldn't have to drive? It all sounds like some sci-fi fantasy :confused:





One real possibility for *automation* should be transportation -- even at the scale of cars and buses -- running on *very* alternative fuels. Typically the technology for such is portrayed as some impossible Promethean task, when in fact current technologies of GPS, laser technology, and wi-fi would probably suffice.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I don't understand what you mean by centralised and automated control of cars. What's automated - the decision making of who gets cars when, or the car's controls hemselves? And what in the blue hell is "point-to-point transportation" we could use but wouldn't have to drive? It all sounds like some sci-fi fantasy :confused:

It's not very advanced, it would be pretty easy to implement. Of course, it shouldn't because - it's as inefficient and useless as autombile travel, but it lacks the psychological aspect of control that makes this preferable. The day all autos are automated is the day autos ought to be abolished.

[ckaihatsu]

It's not very advanced, it would be pretty easy to implement.


Yup.





Of course, it shouldn't because - it's as inefficient and useless as autombile travel, but it lacks the psychological aspect of control that makes this preferable. The day all autos are automated is the day autos ought to be abolished.


I'm going to take issue with this, and even go so far as to say that fixed locations for housing *could* be done away with if fuels were readily available -- why shouldn't webpage-controlled driverless RVs be the norm, either in constant travel or directed wherever, at a whim -- ?

[Arakir]

I've always been curious as to how abolishing private property is supposed to work in socialism,. Obviously people need to have homes and personal things, so how exactly does the process work in practice?

You're confusing private property with personal property. Abolishing private property refers to the socialization of the means of production, or productive private property. There's no point in taking away one's house, car or other items meant for personal use.

Suppose I own a piece of land. Suppose that someone else farms on the land that I own, doing all of the work on the land and growing all of the crops. I do absolutely nothing. Under capitalism, since I own the legal rights to the land, I am entitled to some of the profits gained from selling the crops, and I can evict my workers should I choose to do so.

Under socialism, this type of ownership would not exist. People would only be able to gain wealth by working for it, rather than by simply owning the legal rights to productive private property.

[Rooiakker]

On the topic of transportation, you must consider both the urban, rural, and long distance needs.
For urban environments, biking is likely the ideal for those who can. Less cars on the street means more room for smaller vehicles like bikes and scooters.

For rural environments, you need more individualism and power (to get up and down hills and over long distances.) Car ownership in rural environments especially in the USA is needed.

For long distance, public transportation such a trains are ideal, but are limited to time tables. If your relative whom lives a thousand miles away is sick and dying, and you want to see her, a train or bus is likely not the best option. Airplanes are dirty, and cars are actually cleaner but slower.

This is why we need to utilize all available options for transportation.

On the topic of rebuilding cities to be more efficient, one thing to consider is the needs of those in wheelchairs. Far too many cities are not wheelchair accessible. In the netherlands, they have very large walkways that can easily allow people in wheelchairs, and people on bikes to travel safely through town. In the USA, sidewalks are so narrow you have to walk single file sometimes.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

As several posters have already noted, socialism does not call for the nationalisation of personal property. And only the Party of Democratic Kampuchea or religious groups would want all personal possessions to be communal. However, this does not mean that personal property is sacred and inviolable - surely, if there is a housing crisis for example, the people's state can seize unused homes etc.

In general, I think car pooling, increased use of public transport, communal laundries, creches, kitchens etc. should be encouraged, but by no means enforced. Given enough time, I suppose that most people would come to see this "collective" lifestyle as preferable.

As for rural locations, would collectivisation, agricultural rationalisation and industrialisation of the countryside not result in larger villages, in which public transportation would be more feasible?

[ckaihatsu]

I saw something online awhile back that posited a kind of vehicular transportation using gravity for its motive force by using declines. It noted that, instead of conceiving the system on a 'what-goes-down-must-be-pulled-back-up-again' basis, requiring much energy expenditure, the vehicles waiting to be used could simply be *lifted vertically*, Ferris-wheel style, up to the starting point, for beginning the slide down.

[MarxArchist]

I've always been curious as to how abolishing private property is supposed to work in socialism,. Obviously people need to have homes and personal things, so how exactly does the process work in practice?
Just read this:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/index.htm

[ckaihatsu]

[T]ypically the technology for [driverless cars] is portrayed as some impossible Promethean task, when in fact current technologies of GPS, laser technology, and wi-fi would probably suffice.


Google self driving car now recognizes cyclists' hand signals

http://www.gizmag.com/google-self-driving-car-video-cyclists/31821/

[CommissarNgugu]

I suppose the issue of cars could be resolved by having carparks/parkades (Preferably APS) that can also serve as car rentals. A person walks in and loans a car, and uses it until they no longer need it. They return to the rental and pay the fee, which may well cost much less than fully owning a car. This should work in tandem with public transit - Take the bus or train in cities for further destinations, walk if the destination is close by and easily reachable on foot and rent a car for road trips, shopping for food, etc. Less reliance on cars also means less people who supposedly got their driver's permits out of Carmageddon or Grand Theft Auto. It should also be clear that the car rental should be public property, so dirty capitalists can't use it for profit.

[Redistribute the Rep]

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

[ckaihatsu]

I suppose the issue of cars could be resolved by having carparks/parkades (Preferably APS) that can also serve as car rentals. A person walks in and loans a car, and uses it until they no longer need it. They return to the rental and pay the fee, which may well cost much less than fully owning a car. This should work in tandem with public transit - Take the bus or train in cities for further destinations, walk if the destination is close by and easily reachable on foot and rent a car for road trips, shopping for food, etc. Less reliance on cars also means less people who supposedly got their driver's permits out of Carmageddon or Grand Theft Auto. It should also be clear that the car rental should be public property, so dirty capitalists can't use it for profit.


I'll politely point out that the magazine article I noted, which you're responding to, is about *driverless* technology, so that all the *labor* involved in common everyday transportation can be superseded, once and for all.

(The disclaimer, of course, is that as with all technology under capitalism it's a mixed bag, since not everyone benefits and entire sectors of work could be displaced.)

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I'll politely point out that the magazine article I noted, which you're responding to, is about *driverless* technology, so that all the *labor* involved in common everyday transportation can be superseded, once and for all.

(The disclaimer, of course, is that as with all technology under capitalism it's a mixed bag, since not everyone benefits and entire sectors of work could be displaced.)

Then we can get rid of personal automobiles once and for all, right? I mean, why keep them at all when you cannot even get the psychological benefit of being in control of its movement? It kind of defeats the purpose. Then it's just a private automatic taxi - and then we can get rid of it. Get on the fucking train or bus, and if you want that stupid google automatic auto, you can shove it up your bottom.

[ckaihatsu]

Then we can get rid of personal automobiles once and for all, right? I mean, why keep them at all when you cannot even get the psychological benefit of being in control of its movement? It kind of defeats the purpose. Then it's just a private automatic taxi - and then we can get rid of it. Get on the fucking train or bus, and if you want that stupid google automatic auto, you can shove it up your bottom.


Hmmmmm, that's quite socially *prescriptive* of you, I'd say....

What if the majority of current car owners don't *want* to give up point-to-point convenience for the sake of-- well, *whatever* -- you haven't made any kind of case for 'the fucking train or bus', from the standpoint of a progressive-minded politics.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Hmmmmm, that's quite socially *prescriptive* of you, I'd say....

What if the majority of current car owners don't *want* to give up point-to-point convenience for the sake of-- well, *whatever* -- you haven't made any kind of case for 'the fucking train or bus', from the standpoint of a progressive-minded politics.

I don't care what anyone wants or prefers. Yeah, the people of the United States of Now want their automobiles and they want their McMansions and endless belts of sprawl and cracking motorways; but so what? Why do they want that? Is it some inherent human characteristic that is manifesting itself or the movement of history and society that have given rise thereto in complex interplay? Desires and tastes are a product of the culture of the existing society and can therefore not be judged from the perspective of the present (as pertains to after a revolution), save to proclaim that all its artefacts save those kept as museum-pieces for amusement and laughing at the silliness of the past are to be burned in a massive bonfire.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't care what anyone wants or prefers. Yeah, the people of the United States of Now want their automobiles and they want their McMansions and endless belts of sprawl and cracking motorways; but so what? Why do they want that? Is it some inherent human characteristic that is manifesting itself or the movement of history and society that have given rise thereto in complex interplay? Desires and tastes are a product of the culture of the existing society and can therefore not be judged from the perspective of the present (as pertains to after a revolution), save to proclaim that all its artefacts save those kept as museum-pieces for amusement and laughing at the silliness of the past are to be burned in a massive bonfire.


Nice rant, but what's so bad about being ushered from my domicile, at an instant, to a destination of my choice, without inconveniencing a single person, or having to drive -- ? The alternatives to this all suck by comparison.

Desires and tastes are nonetheless grounded in physical reality, so the less cumbersome it is to realize one's desires and tastes, the better, doubtlessly.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't care what anyone wants or prefers. Yeah, the people of the United States of Now want their automobiles and they want their McMansions and endless belts of sprawl and cracking motorways; but so what? Why do they want that? Is it some inherent human characteristic that is manifesting itself or the movement of history and society that have given rise thereto in complex interplay? Desires and tastes are a product of the culture of the existing society and can therefore not be judged from the perspective of the present (as pertains to after a revolution), save to proclaim that all its artefacts save those kept as museum-pieces for amusement and laughing at the silliness of the past are to be burned in a massive bonfire.I don't think consumer demand is really the reason US real estate and housing developers created the kinds of sprawling suburbs that exist.

In fact, in terms of consumer preference right now, yuppies want "bilke/walkable cities" that have been gentrified and re-invigorated with new "public" transport that is more exclusive that can shuttle them from their condos and flipped homes to business districts.

But I totally agree that tastes and preferences in this way are due to the way society is set up. No one in many places in the US could even imagine living without a car - they couldn't get to work eaisily etc. Sprawl due to developers wanting cheap land and mass-produced home construction makes cars a necissity in places like Pheonix where there is little or no public transportation. On the other hand, a middle class person in Manhattan or San Francisco might not imagine why anyone would WANT a car because there is infrastructure, things are relativly compact, and it's too expensive (you have to rent a parking spot) and impractical to have a car that you only would really use if you were leaving the city.

If we work less, if urban areas are developed around ease and desires of the population, then life could move at a slower pace; we wouldn't need to all rush to work all the time and then rush around trying to get chores and daily upkeep done. So I think cars would be seen as redundant and could eventually just be shared like library books as a way to maintain access to literal mobility while also not having tons of steel just lining the sidewalks 24/7.